Uday Narayan Shukla vs State of M.P. and Others

Hon. Shri Justice S.K. Gangele

The petitioner has filed this petition in regard to his non-promotion to the post of Principal, Post Graduate College. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Chemistry on emergency basis with effect from 29/10/1965. He was selected by the Public Service Commission subsequently and appointed as a Lecturer vide order dated 14/12/1965. The post of ''Lecturer'' was re-designated as ''Assistant Professor'' with effect from 01/01/1973. After completion of 20 years of service, the petitioner was granted Kramonnati and he was promoted on the post of Kromonnat Grade Professor. Subsequently, the petitioner was treated as Professor. In the Gradation List of Professors showing position as on 01/04/1995, the petitioner was placed at serial No. 373 and he was placed at serial No. 184 in the Gradation List showing position as on 01/04/1999. He was further promoted to the post of Principal, Degree College on adhoc basis vide order dated 30/11/1996. Thereafter, the petitioner was regularized on the promoted post of Principal, Degree College vide order dated 30th May, 2000. In the aforesaid order, the petitioner was placed at serial No. 166 and the respondent No. 4 was placed at serial No. 27. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 was junior to him as per the Gradation List showing position as on 01/4/1995 and 01/04/1999, however, subsequently the petitioner was made junior to respondent No. 4 vide order dated 30th May, 2000. The respondent No. 4 was further promoted to the post of Principal, Post Graduate College, however, the petitioner could not get promotion and he has been retired from service from the post of Principal, Degree College.

The respondents have filed their return and have submitted that the case of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 was considered from promotion to the post of Principal, Degree College in accordance with the Rules named as Madhya Pradesh Education Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as ''The Rules of 1990'') and because the criteria for promotion to the post of Principal, Degree College was "merit-cum-seniority" and the respondent No. 4 was more meritorious, hence, the respondent No. 4 was placed above in the seniority list.

The proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee have been produced by the learned Deputy Government Advocate for perusal of this Court and in accordance with the DPC proceedings, the Committee adopted the criteria for promotion to the post of Principal, Degree College "merit-cum-seniority" and thereafter the Committee awarded numbers in accordance with the ACR gradings of an employee i.e. for "A+" four number, for "A" three number, for "B" two number and for "C" one number and accordingly on the basis of receipt of total numbers in accordance with the ACR gradings, the employees have been placed in the Selection List. The Committee considered the ACR gradings of the employees for last five years with effect from 1994 to 1998 and because the ACR grading of the petitioner for the year 1994 was not available, hence, his ACR gradings with effect from 1993 to 1998 were considered. The petitioner received "B" grading in the year 1993, 1995, 1997 and 1998 and "C" grading in the year 1996 and accordingly, the petitioner was placed at serial No. 166 in the Selection List. Contrary to this, the respondent No. 4 received "A+" grading in the year 1995 and "A" gradings in the years 1994, 1996, 1997 and 1998 and accordingly she was placed at serial No. 27 in the Selection List.

Rule 18 of the Rules of 1990 prescribes preparation of list of suitable officers. The relevant Rule is as under:

Preparation of list of suitable officers: (1) The Committee shall prepare a list of such persons as satisfy the condition prescribed in rule 14 above and as are held by the committee to be suitable from promotion/transfer to the Service. The list shall be sufficient to cover the anticipated vacancies on account of retirement and promotion during the course of one year from the date of preparation of the select list. A reserve list consisting of twenty five percent of the number of persons included in the said list shall also be prepared to meet the unforeseen vacancies occurring during the course of the aforesaid period.

(2) For preparing the select list of persons for promotion from the post of Class III to Class II, Class II to Class III and from Class II to Class I, the criterion shall be seniority subject to fitness and for promotion from Class I to Class I posts, criterion shall be merit-cum-seniority).

(3) The names of the officers including in the list shall be arranged in order of seniority in the service or posts, as specified in column (2) of Schedule-IV at the time of preparation of such select list:

Provided that any junior officer, who in the opinion of the Committee, is of exceptional merit and suitability, may be assigned in the list a higher place than that of officers senior to him.

Explanation: A person whose name is included in a select list but who is not promoted during the validity of the list, shall have no claim to seniority over those considered in a subsequent selection merely by the fact of his earlier selection.

In accordance with the aforesaid Rule, the criteria for selection is "merit-cum-seniority" and if in the opinion of the Committee any junior officer is of exceptional merit and suitability, he may be assigned in the list a higher place than that of officer senior to him. In the present case, the Committee adopted a criteria as mentioned above and awarded marks on each ACR gradings to an officer and because the respondent No. 4 was more meritorious and received more marks than the present petitioner, he was placed above in the select list. The aforesaid criteria adopted by the Committee is in accordance with the concept of "merit-cum-seniority". The petitioner is less meritorious, hence, he has been placed lower in the select list. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, there is no illegality or irregularity in assigning the lower seniority to the petitioner in the select list of Principal, Degree College. Hence, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.